Flight Training during travel?

djackd

Well-Known Member
Pando Daily is running an article about Warren Buffet's former pilot starting an "airline" that teaches you to fly during other travel that you are doing.

Doesn't this fly in the face of part 135 rules?

I dont' have time to look it up, and respond in the comment section, but I wish I did. This just doesn't make sense.
 
Warren Buffett’s former pilot launches Visionary Airlines in Silicon Valley

photo-2.jpg
BY KYM MCNICHOLAS
ON JUNE 14, 2013

warrenbuffettpilot.jpg
When my mom was hospitalized in New Castle, Pennyslvania, diagnosed with a pulmonary embolism (blood clots in her lungs), I felt helpless. I didn’t know how to get her back to the San Francisco Bay Area without jeopardizing her health. The doctor told me it would be fatal to drive, take a train, or fly commercial. That’s when Michael Flint came to the rescue. Don’t worry about a thing, he said. He would lease a plane and fly my family back home at low altitude.
Michael Flint was Warren Buffett’s pilot, and flew Air Force One and medi vac for the Air Force. He got Mom home alive and well, with only one emergency landing. (I sucked down all of her oxygen as I turned green going over the Rockies.) During our cross-country journey in 2011, Flint and I chatted. “Did you know there’s a landing strip just about every 20 minutes of flight?” he asked. I didn’t until he told me. Most go unused, but Flint said that would soon change. He said we would soon see a significant shift from commercial to private, and that he would be one of the main players.
He’s on his way. This week Michael Flint, along with his team, including Chairman Mark Allen, who is also a CTO of Progress Software, are launching Visionary Airlines, and they’re offering their first flights through an Indiegogo campaign. Visionary Airlines’ first product is Flight Training Adventures, a destination-based flight-training program, which allows clients to earn flight hours towards a pilot’s license while they travel either for business or pleasure. They’re planning to expand to flight tourism as well as broader charter services later this year.
Miss California 2012 got a taste of a Visionary Flight Training Adventure on her most recent trip to Silicon Valley when she met with Ooyala and Vidcaster about streaming this month’s pageant. Miss California Organization CEO Bob Arnym is considering Visionary Airlines as the official charter of his scholarship program. Check out their flight and hear from Flint about why private aviation is taking off now more than ever:
People are fed up with commercial aviation, especially the flight delays, long security lines, and the nickel and diming from baggage to food. The premium cost of private travel isn’t deterring executives throughout Silicon Valley as much as it once did. At least that’s what multiple new charter services that have emerged in the Valley are betting on.
XOJet and Black Jet, the latter touted as the Uber of the sky, are taking off. The most notable, though, is SurfAir, the Netflix of aviation, which has a subscription model to charter. When SurfAir announced its business plan one year ago, more than 1,000 people signed up for 150 slots available for the $1,600 per month all-you-can-travel subscription. SurfAir appears a little more cautious today than it was a year ago, having reduced its beta class from 500 slots, and increasing the monthly subscription from the originally proposed $1,000.
Flint is taking the same cautious approach, testing the market before a full-blown launch. That explains the Indiegogo campaign versus spending thousands on an extensive marketing campaign launching the airline. It’s a good move. He will face marketing challenges as a cross between a charter and a flight school. But he is definitely playing to a large audience in Silicon Valley that loves to be in the driver’s seat.
What’s left to be seen, however, is the scalability of these charter services beyond California. The masses can’t afford it, especially in an economy that’s still struggling to recover from the 2008 recession. If these charter services succeed, it’ll happen in Silicon Valley, which is why all the charters are making it home.
Like any good entrepreneur, Flint has grand visions. He is convinced that within five years small private planes will be the new car. Why take a bus when you can drive? And why take commercial when you can learn to fly and work toward your own pilot’s license?
 
Too funny. I know that guy!

Peeeeeeeeersonally, I wouldn't do it. The Feds would call the FBO I worked at all the time and ask us to fly them to Bakersfield. We always answered that we couldn't do it and then they asked "Well, what if we call it flight instruction".

I knew some of the people at the FSDO so I'd start asking "Is this Eric? This has to be Tom, how ya been man?"

Caller-ID is a hell of a tool.
 
Definitely interesting. You never know. It may depend on the business model, although, looking at the website, it's seems hard to reconcile holding out saying "We can create the perfect flight for any occasion. Contact us and we can provide you with the best private air service around." and providing "Charter Flights, Business Travel, Leisure Getaways" with "Visionary Airlines is not a FAA 135 air carrier. We operate under part 91 flight regulations."

http://www.visionaryairlines.com/services.html

I don't have an opinion on this one.
 
So have they found a loophole? Maybe the FSDO said it would be alright if they were actually conducting training? That doesn't seem likely.
 
So have they found a loophole? Maybe the FSDO said it would be alright if they were actually conducting training? That doesn't seem likely.

But it could be. We've had discussion here on the blur between training and taxi.

Is the ultralight operator in Hawaii giving ultralight training to tourists conducting a training or an air tour operation (I've taken two of those flights and the commitment to training was clear to me even though it involved flying over gorgeous areas). If I want to do tour an area in a small airplane on vacation but don't want to bother with a checkout and the instructor goes with me, it it training or an air tour? What if the pitch for this company is really to teach very rich people how to fly these long-distance aircraft, doesn't training en route to business trips or vacation spots make far more sense than boring holes in the practice area 10 miles from the airport? Isn't it a good form of marketing to show the true utility of personal air travel by taking a flight that means something to the prospective student?

What if the program involves the student buying the airplane he or she is being trained it? And if the airplanes are operated by the company, looks like there is more than enough cash (and hopefully brainpower) invested to obtain a 135 certificate if they wanted to.

That's all speculation on my part. But really, we don't know very much about this operation at all so any opinion any of us might have (especially including me playing devil's advocate) is nothing more than a WAG.
 
...providing "Charter Flights, Business Travel, Leisure Getaways"..."Visionary Airlines is not a FAA 135 air carrier. We operate under part 91 flight regulations."


Yeah, I think under certain conditions the travel-lesson combination can be legitimate (and as I've posted before, I frankly think the regs should be much more permissive with this type of thing), but the way this guy is marketing himself and the way things are currently written/interpreted/enforced... no way. This is precisely what you're not supposed to do.
 
Yeah, I think under certain conditions the travel-lesson combination can be legitimate (and as I've posted before, I frankly think the regs should be much more permissive with this type of thing), but the way this guy is marketing himself and the way things are currently written/interpreted/enforced... no way. This is precisely what you're not supposed to do.

Yeah, it's the oxymoronic "not 135 air carrier" ... "charter flights" that automatically raises interesting questions. We know what they are saying, but we don't know what they are doing. That's why I can't say it's ok or not. Occupational hazard.
 
Yeah, it's the oxymoronic "not 135 air carrier" ... "charter flights" that automatically raises interesting questions. We know what they are saying, but we don't know what they are doing. That's why I can't say it's ok or not. Occupational hazard.

Obviously I'd be interested to see if they get it up and running how they justify it. That said, based on the article (because journalists always get it right) we can unequivocally state that the article itself is "holding out for the purpose of air transportation," which makes operating 91 illegal. Now, if they plan on operating 135 single pilot that's a different story. You can teach the front seat passenger whatever you want. The passenger logging it is where they're going to have to get creative...

However, to a certain extent the whole thing is moot, because we've all seen the air taxi situations flop on a grand scale time and again. "Within five years small planes will be the new car." Yeah, right, the billion (probably trillion) dollar transportation industry is going to go under in five years. Bulllpoop!
 
Too funny. I know that guy!

Peeeeeeeeersonally, I wouldn't do it. The Feds would call the FBO I worked at all the time and ask us to fly them to Bakersfield. We always answered that we couldn't do it and then they asked "Well, what if we call it flight instruction".

I knew some of the people at the FSDO so I'd start asking "Is this Eric? This has to be Tom, how ya been man?"

Caller-ID is a hell of a tool.
"Nice try, Federales. We know nobody wants to go to Bakersfield."
 
Please excuse the disclaimer: I don't usually say this because I think it's usually obvious, but what I say with respect to this operation and ones like it is just general information. I'm not acting as anybody's lawyer here and not expressing a legal opinion. As I said before, I don't know enough about the situation to express an opinion about its legality or illegality. Even if I did I wouldn't. If anything, I'm expressing how difficult it is to form a legal opinion about a real matter.

Obviously I'd be interested to see if they get it up and running how they justify it. That said, based on the article (because journalists always get it right) we can unequivocally state that the article itself is "holding out for the purpose of air transportation," which makes operating 91 illegal.
I don't think we can. We get way too hung up on "holding out" which is only part of the analysis.

It still depends on what they are doing. Generally speaking, holding out is fine for something you are allowed to do. As a CFI, you can hold out all you want as providing flight instruction. As a commercial pilot you can hold out availability for ferrying aircraft, flying pipeline patrol, acting as an aerial photography platform, being a pilot-for-hire for a corporate jet, a whole bunch of things. The problem here is that they appear to be holding out as providing air transportation services, as task that generally cannot be done without an operating certificate.

BTW, you don't have to leave it to the article for holding out. The quotes I've been using are from the company's website. There's even a video: http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/visionary-airlines-flight-training-adventure

However, to a certain extent the whole thing is moot, because we've all seen the air taxi situations flop on a grand scale time and again. "Within five years small planes will be the new car." Yeah, right, the billion (probably trillion) dollar transportation industry is going to go under in five years. Bulllpoop!
That could very well be the bottom line.
 
Agree with midlife, no way to draw a conclusion. If the "students" being transported and instructed are partial owners, that changes things too.

That would probably be how I would structure it. If you have 20 five percent owners, you are no longer providing the aircraft...
 
That would probably be how I would structure it. If you have 20 five percent owners, you are no longer providing the aircraft...


I've often wondered why this angle hasn't been used in "clubs" with amateur built experimentals. If everyone has an equity position (even a tiny one), then they aren't renting they are owners, which means they could be used for instruction too.......
 
Back
Top